Martinsburg independent. [volume] (Martinsburg, W. Va.) 1875-1900, 1887-06-04
Mr.. George Sat Upon.


SWEEPING DENUNcIATIoN OF HENRY
GEORGE AND HIS LAND CONVERSATION
scHEME--IT WOULD CAUSE A REvo-
LUTON OF OUR CIVILIZATION.
New YORK, May 27.-The address
of Professor Theodore w. Dwight,
in which he sweepingly denounced
the land doctrine of Henry George
and DR.. McGlynn, has created q
genuine sensation.
| 1t was delivered during the COM
mencement exercises of the Colum-
bia College Law School, and, as
Warden, Professor Dwight was adj
dressing 1913 graduates, not to men,
ton a vast audience that filled every
seat in the great edifice. Behind
him, in his official robes and mortar
board, was president Barnard, of
Columbia College. His speech was
received with terrific applause.
"The lawyer he said, lis to-day
confronted by a most momentous
and startling question raised seri
ously for the first time i'll thousands
of yeaas--is there any such thing as
individual property, particularly
property in land All of our pred
ecessors have been relieved from the
discussion of this question since the
days of Abraham, who bought
piece of land for burial place in
the presence of the children of Heth,
and it was made sure unto him for
a possession. This means in our
modern phrase that he had it in fee
simple.
"From that day up to the present
moment no one of Importance has
denied the right of private proper
ty in land. In particular no one I'M
til now has proposed to confistate it
after it had been acknowledged and
Incorporated with the most arduous
labors and hallowed by the most
tender affections known to the
strength and the heart of man.
"All this is left to the philosophers
of our day who have derived their
capacity to attack the right Of pro
perty from the leisure and culture
attainable by reason of its universal
recognition. Without it we would
return to the nomadic condition
when each man, clad in his sheepskin
and leaning on his staff, shivered
as he watched the stars by night
| AMI longed for the coming of the
day. The men who now attack the
right of property in land may mean
well, but that is so much the worse.
The better their intentions the
greater the mischief. If it were
known that they had a bad inten-
ton good men would at once for.
sake them. We can now see how
wise our forefathers were when they
wrote over the face of their political
constitution the sacred and time
honored phrase that private proper
ty shall not be taken even for pub
lie use without just compensation.
This grand idea they borrowed from
Christianity and the Christian
Church as far back as the days of
Justinian. 1t cannot be withdrawn
from the United States Constitution
withoutsthe consent of three-fourths
of the States. 1t can no more be
withdrawn indirectly than directly,
as for example by tax cunningly
devised for this purpose. No State
can take an immoral position on
such a question as this at this stage
of the worlds civilization "without
property in land no man has an as
sured birthplace or burial place.
No tree can be planted shat he calls
his own nor any dwelling erected
that can give him shelter. There
can be nochurches but State church
es, no colleges or schools but State
colleges and State schools. When
the State owns all the land and all
the improvements, what tempting
prize that will before some bold adj
venturer.
'What is the lawyer for? / reply
to stand like wall against the i'm
pending deluge, and to insist at all
times and against all corners upon
sacred rights of property, and toes
tablish and faithfully admister such
laws as will assure to the laboring
man as well as to the rich share of
that gift of God which he gave to
man, not to hold by any casual and
wandering title, but by that fixed
law which society establishes as
most likely to develop the indivldu-
al man and to make the State great
and prosperous, at once the symbol
and promoter of civilized justice.
"Great fundamental facts will re-
main /; those who attack them will